A submariner told me that our sub strategy has always been the opposite of this. Said the Ruskies (back in the day) were trying to automate more and have fewer men, that the US realized that thinking was critical to operating a nuke sub, so they had more men on board relatively speaking. They said the “more human brains” strategy worked far better, since you’re dealing with complex equipment and potentially complex situations.
Now we’re going completely in the opposite direction ???
My tech background tells me the reasoning is simple: vendors who sell hardware are always trying to get you to buy more expensive hardware. Way more than you need, features you don’t need, complexity that winds up being more expensive, etc., etc.
The revolving door is so pervasive, and lately political corruption and ties with socialist elite financiers is so out in the open, that FedGov seems to think that any wacky idea they embark on will be largely unreported and thus unchallenged by Congress or anyone else.
It’s like the spending at NSA for data storage to store every email, phone call, etc.
Do you know how computer FAST hardware depreciates in value - and becomes completely obsolete ?
Buying that much storage is doomed to looking like a ridiculously old-fashioned computer museum within a decade.
But it’s the sheeple’s money, and the vendors are inviting us to all those parties and what not, so...
Somehow, the Simplest Tool Theory has been forgotten. “The simplest tool that’ll get the job done is always the best tool”. They’re pretty much 180 out of phase.
I am working at Electric Boat. I am assigned to the massive engineering pooled hired to design the OHIO Class replacement project. I specifically work in propulsion plant fluids. I am one of 2 former submarine sailors in that department. I was both an operator and an officer.
My first assignment was to perform a complex study regarding the manning of the engineering department. The OHIO class had 4 more watching stations in the engineeroom than the new VIRGINIA Class submarines. In the initial concept phase the Navy wanted to take it a step further, and only have 1 person in maneuvering and an officer, and only 2 people in the spaces, as opposed to the 6 in the VIRGINIA.
The operator in maneuvering, said he felt like he was playing “whack a mole”, when we introduced him to the prototype under a casualty situation. The operators in the spaces were completely overwhelmed to do the initial response to fire/flooding/steam leak drill. In short the proposed watch team was inadequate, and the Navy elected to keep the same as VIRGINIA.
I will take this a step further. I had to estimate the work hours of the engineer department sailors, and confirm the Navy’s proposed engineering crew size would not work anymore per person than the OHIO class. I spent over a year and half collecting data. I sent 3 surveys with every preventive maintenance item for their equipment, time spent paint and cleaning, and time for corrective maintenance. As it turns out the proposed crew size will have fewers hours spent on maintenance due to the efficiency of the system.
With this, the Navy, at least on this project took a large consideration about their crew size, and their ability to effectively meeting the engineering department duties.